geronimo-dev mailing list archives

On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> -0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
>>>> or moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be
>>>> added to branches/1.1, this should not cause problems. The
>>>> release manager gets say over what goes into a release, they can
>>>> revert changes they don't want in the release. I think the copy
>>>> to branches/1.1.x just adds steps for no gain.
>>> I would upgrade this to a -1 on my part.
>>
>> Think you're getting kind of nit-picky on what you think is
>> easiest for a release manager to do. I'd rather see us simply
>> agree on what the end result should be.
>>
>> IMHO, if a release manager wants to copy into a temp location
>> while they finalize the release (which can take days) to remove
>> the risk of having to roll back accidental changes, that's fine.
>
> While I agree with your statements, I think that the point that DJ
> and I were trying to make was that there is no need for a branches/
> 1.1.x branch as a temp location if no one is modifying branches/
> 1.1. This is the case if we only put bug fixes into 1.x branches.
>
Then you both missed the beginning of this thread where Aaron was
saying "i want to update branches/1.1 with a fix for 1.1.1, where did
it go?" The issue is, we haven't released 1.1 yet and no one should
be updating that source till then.
Hence the idea to copy 1.1 aside as 1.1.0 so the activities of
creating, voting, and shipping 1.1 (which take about a week) could
happen in parallel to bug fixing 1.1.1.
-David